Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills : I am completely dumbfounded…..

That there are still people that think these poor kids are guilty! WTF? I guess I mostly chalk it up to being uneducated, but seriously, how can one be THAT uneducated about it if they are looking at pages about the case!

Every time I see footage of them being lead to or from court, or in jail, it breaks my heart that so much of their lives were stolen over prejudges and police desperation. I am SO glad that justice was -somewhat- served and they were at least released..



"I just thought if you invited me over, you knew it was me showing up"

I guess thinking that so much about who the murderer is and what happened is unknown is unsettling and troubling, and people will find someone to blame so they can label the thing as a done deal. It's must be satisfying for some to group up and pick on those who are in a weak position.

People will really go to great lengths in ignoring facts and in not allowing themselves to think rationally, in order to be able to get outlets for their emotions. People don't think with their head; they let their gut feelings do their thinking for them and use their heads to rationalize their already made up opinions and assessments.

Their trial and the police work was a shame, but does that make them innocent? For me it is 2 separate things.

And everybody always talk of the 3 as if they were inseparable - they are all innocent or all guilty - but who knows what one might have done, or see, or hide, or participate in at various degree?

And I don't think every people who support the WM3 are being just rational and have read all the evidence. A lot of people just idenifie with Damien and say "I was like him and wouldn't kill anybody". That doesn't prove anything either.

I take a bit of offense to your statements. I am pretty well educated, and after watching all of the documentaries, and looking at all the facts (because the documentaries left out a lot), I, personally, think they could have done it. Do I know 100%? Not at all, but my gut feeling, and psychology background, pushes me towards thinking Damien, at least, was involved.

At the end of the day, there really is no clear cut answer. There is a lot of things for the WM3, and a lot of things against them. I fear we will never truly know what happened.

Wisdom Begins in Wonder

You can't really convict someone of a capital crime, any crime, based on gut feeling. I acknowledge your statement that you've reviewed the evidence, but it's "gut feeling" that you reference when deciding guilt, whether you noticed that or not.

From a purely legal POV, the only thing that convicted Misskelley was his confession and there are abundant reasons to consider his confession(s) invalid.

There was zero evidence against Baldwin other than the fact that he hung around with Echols and was named in the non-credible Misskelley confession.

There is some circumstantial evidence against Echols, witnesses placing him near the scene at the time of the crime and multiple statements attributed to him where he claimed involvement primarily. But virtually every witness showed repeated confusion about times, places and people while exhibiting attention-seeking behavior and subject to the lure of a potential reward for convicting suspects who were, for all they knew, guilty anyway. That isn't enough to convict someone of three counts of capital murder in my book, not even close.

Could one or more of them have been guilty? I suppose it is possible. But the evidence against simply dioes not rise to the level of a conviction in my opinion. Granted, it certainly did in the view of the juries that decided these trials, but for all I know, they made their decision on "gut" also, otherwise we wouldn't be debating a miscarriage of justice in the first place.

"You didn't come into this life just to sit around on a dugout bench, did ya?" - Morris Buttermaker

if these documentaries had told the whole story I don't think the outcry would have been so profound. People saw the documentaries and were outraged that these three were found guilty because they dressed differently.

How many would have felt the same way if Damien's mental health history had been a major part of the documentary?

If you want a good example of a really guilty person getting people on his side look no further than Mumia Abu Jamal..

He was clearly guilty, no doubt about it yet he managed to convince a large following of people including many celebrities that he was framed..

I don't know if the three were guilty, some were guilty or non were guilty, I just know that Damien did nothing to help himself early on

Neither you nor I know whether they (one, two, or all three of the boys) committed the act.

Should they have been convicted of the murders? Absolutely not! I find it atrocious that they were.

Did any or all of them take part in the murders? I have no idea. And neither do you.

We can guess, or form opinions from what we read and see, but while you can't understand people believing the three are guilty, you also can't KNOW that they aren't.

Just for the record, I don't believe they killed those boys (although it wouldn't really surprise me if Damien had a role in the murders, to be honest), but when it comes down to it, I have no idea of the truth.

Either way, the justice system failed miserably.

Why would it not surprise you if Damien had a role in the murders?




"I just thought if you invited me over, you knew it was me showing up"

I know I'm not the one you asked, but it wouldn't surprise me because Damien had a long history of psychotic behavior that was very well documented years before the murders took place. There are jailhouse and psychiatric records that were in existence prior to the crimes, and yet all the documentaries conveniently leave this out.

Examples? He terrorized his ex girlfriend and her mother. There are police reports to prove this, written up at the time of the complaints. Yet apparently this wasn't important.

There is also a police report of another young girl he terrorized, banging on her window and threatening to kill her no less. You can't make these up after the trial, these records existed before that as part of normal police routine to take down this information.

While in jail before the murders, a correctional officer saw him grab another inmate's arm and suck the blood from a wound he had. The other boys in the cell said he told them he hadn't taken his medication and was about to go off on them. This report was filed before the murders. Again.

He also told his psychiatrist many dark and messed up things, like drinking blood gave him power, he hated the human race, and that he was possessed. These records are from the psychiatrist herself, they were not fabricated.

He also wrote that he was homicidal on his OWN charts at the hospital, which he stayed at more than once.

Let's not forget he also attacked a kid unprovoked at school.

I hate when people act like law enforcement singled this kid out because of his music tastes and the fact he wore black, like that's ALL they had to go on. No. People act like he was just a normal rebellious teenager that got picked on. Like he was such a good guy. Poor Damien. It drives me crazy. Look into the history of this kid and admit that even if he didn't commit the murders, he was an extremely disturbed individual throughout 1992-1993. That's all I wish people would admit.

I find what you wrote about Damien puzzling in only one aspect - what is the source of your information about the record of Damien's psychiatric records and hospitalization stay(s)? Did they become public record due to an appeal? I am curious.

I agree with posters on other threads who have written they are disappointed because the HBO documentary wasn't complete. The filmmakers' project was flawed by their not asking all of the questions that should have been asked, and not showing all of the evidence. I felt the documentary was slanted in favor of the defendants. I am NOT SAYING whether or not any of the the three are guilty or not guilty, only that the documentarians didn't fulfill their function. This isn't a true documentary.

Human Rights: Know Them, Demand Them, Defend Them

---

I find what you wrote about Damien puzzling in only one aspect - what is the source of your information about the record of Damien's psychiatric records and hospitalization stay(s)? Did they become public record due to an appeal? I am curious.

---

His own defense presented them to the court during the sentencing phase in the hope of getting him off the death penalty. Of course none of the documentaries tell you this.

Nyy rating of the HBO documentary just went down several points. Shame on the film makers. Talk about twisting the film to show only what they wanted. They aren't documentarians and I knew that while watching the film.

I'm really glad some people are starting to wake up.

Good for you!

callahan.8k.com

wm3truth.com

This film does do a good job of pointing out problems with the prosecution. It's about as one sided as if it had been made by their defense team, though.

I don't think they should have been convicted, but after reading about the case a bit, I'm not convinced they are innocent either. Especially Damien.

I am the eggman, they are the eggmen
I am the walrus, googoo goo joob goo goo goo goo joob-J Lennon

Hey Preda! I'm sorry I've MIA! I hope you're well.



callahan.8k.com

wm3truth.com

Singling Damien out for his legal and psychiatric history is no less outrageous than singling him out for music, literature and fashion taste. The ONLY thing that should have led to suspicion about him for these murders would be direct, physical evidence of his involvement. If you don't have that, you have nothing.



http://rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

No, that's not what evidence consists of. People lying, changing their alibis, knowing details of the crime they shouldn't and eyewitness testimony is also considered evidence. Plenty of people are convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. The WM3 aren't special. They don't get the burden of proof bar raised higher for them, while innuendo suffices for whoever they accuse this week.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

I wasn't making an anthropological comment on what many people feel is sufficient. I was rather making a philosophical (by way of epistemology, ontology, etc.) comment on what should be considered sufficient.

Why? Why should physical evidence be only considered sufficient when absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? 80% of killers don't leave a trace of themselves behind. Are you saying that a defendant lying several times in court, changing his alibi constantly and knowing details of a crime he shouldn't, should not be considered as evidence against him/her?
It's not what many people feel is sufficient it's what a court of law feels is sufficient. If you have a better authority than a court of law to establish facts in criminal cases, then let's hear it. I fail to see how your mooted authority would be superior than the present authority though, considering you don't seem to know what evidence actually consists of.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

---

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

---

I agree with that, but I agree that we need to be able to "prove" that someone is guilty, so that requires more than a lack of evidence that they didn't commit a crime.

In other words, we can't assume that someone committed a crime simply because there isn't evidence that they did not commit the crime.

Re lying several times in court, the reason why is simply that it's irrelevant to the crime in question.

Let's say that Bob killed Joe, Betty, Frank and Billy in the past. Bob is a pathological liar. He'll defraud you any way that he can. Etc. Well, if Bob is on trial for killing Alan, it could be the case that he didn't kill Alan even though he killed all of those other people and he'll lie and change his story repeatedly on the stand and he'll cheat you out of anything he can cheat you out of, etc. That he's lying on the stand has nothing to do with whether he killed Alan. That he killed Joe, Betty, Frank and Billy has nothing to do with whether he killed Alan, either. Only direct evidence that he killed Alan has to do with whether he killed Alan.

Re knowing details of a crime that someone can't know unless they committed the crime, I agree that counts as evidence as long as we're just about 100% certain that there's no way, including guessing, including having some inside source of information, etc., that the person could know the details aside from having committed the crime. That would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

---

It's not what many people feel is sufficient it's what a court of law feels is sufficient.

---

I'm not at all reporting what is contingently the case legally in a particular vicinity.

Aside from that, you're bringing up stuff that's subjective ("how it would be superior," "what evidence actually consists of," etc.) and pretending that it's not subjective.

No. Lying in court is very relevant when you're the actual defendant, particularly when you're up for multiple child murder. Innocent people have no need to lie. They simply stick to their story and certainly don't keep changing it as is convenient.
Again no. What constitutes evidence is not subjective. There is a standard definition for evidence and evidence existed against them. It was presented at the trial where their Defence could challenge it to their hearts content.
It was then presented to a jury who convicted them. Twice.
It was proven BARD which is the only standard a court of law requires. Absolute mathematical certainty is not required in any court of law.

I'm asking you to provide a better authority than the present one because you seem to have issues with it. However your personal burden of proof standards appear to be raised too high for any court to function properly.
Therefore my question wrt a different authority to replace the present and what precisely will make it better is valid with all due respect.

I'm not going to write books back and forth to someone on a message board.

I'll answer one point at a time. If you want me to get to the rest, don't write a book back in response to me answering one point at a time.

---

No. Lying in court is very relevant when you're the actual defendant, particularly when you're up for multiple child murder. Innocent people have no need to lie.

---

It's an issue of logical validity.

If you want to claim that just in case Bob lies when Bob is on trial for the murder of Alan, then necessarily, Bob killed Alan, you'd need to provide some sort of argument that supports that.

I'm saying that it's possible both for Bob to lie and for Bob to have not murdered Alan (despite the fact that Bob killed Joe, Betty, etc.). By the definition of "validity" in logic, that means that "Just in case Bob lies and Bob is on trial for the murder of Alan, Bob is guilty of murdering Alan" is an invalid argument.

You want to argue that that's it's not possible for Bob to lie and not be innocent of the murder of Alan. You want to argue that "Just in case Bob lies and Bob is on trial for the murder of Alan, Bob is guilty of murdering Alan" is a valid argument. So what's the argument for the validity of that?

I'm not asking you to, I'm simply asking you to validate your position credibly as opposed to opining what you personally think should constitute evidence or burden of proof. It's completely irrelevant what either you or I personally consider as evidence as there's a standard definition of it, regardless on how anyone feels and that standard was met at their trial.

Again, no. Innocent people do not lie on the stand when they're up for murder. In order to make excuses for their lies, one must engage in contortionist logic which is of no interest to me. Lying on the stand constitutes as evidence against a defendant regardless of your personal apparent issues with this.

I'm not interested in Bob, Alan or any other fictitious personality you've just invented. In this case Damien lied while Damien was up for multiple murder. The argument that supports that is that the defendant is lying when he's supposed to be truthful, due to his innocence. If you can't see that then well, you can't see that. Doesn't validate your position at all though and merely has you coming across as somebody with impossibly high and decidedly unrealistic standards for any court of law to function properly.

Yeah and I already told you that I'm not interested in contortionist, pretzel, twisty-turny-bendy logic and don't regard such illogicality as a valid point at all whatsoever.

No, you're simply viewing Echols consistent lies on the stand in a vacuum in isolation from all the other evidence as if the whole case hinges on his lies.
You disregard his detailed knowledge of the murders which the public didn't know. You disregard Misskelley's multiple confessions, one to his attorney with no cops present, another with his attorney begging him not to confess and Miskelley's also detailed knowledge of the crime supported by independent and forensic evidence. You don't view the totality of the evidence. View a case via examining each individual piece of evidence in isolation from each other is completely illogical. In any murder case no matter how damning, you could probably attach reasonable doubt to each individual separate piece. But when viewed in totality the improbability factor shoots way up. None of your objections have a higher probative value than guilt when the totality of the case is viewed. I'm quite frankly surprised this case caused so much controversy as if one views the totality of the case, their guilt is pretty clear cut.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

"validate your position credibly" what does that amount to, exactly?

Come out with something credible is what it amounts to exactly, as in something credible which would convince me that your objections actually hold weight. Not the wishful thinking and impossibly high standards you've so far offered and not your personal belief in what should constitute as evidence or burden of proof or BARD.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

Two questions:

(1) What makes you believe, especially after some explicit statements about this above, that I'm talking about something aside from my personal view?

and

(2) What makes you believe that I have a goal of persuading you personally about anything, and why would I have that goal?

1 Nothing. Counter question- what makes you think that your personal opinion should be given validity, considering your personal opinion is irrelevant wrt how a court of law functions and the standards it requires which are lower than your personal standards.

2 Nothing. We're simply jawing on the internet. Within the context of jawing on the internet and specific topic, your stance and position is completely unconvincing. Your passive agression isn't very interesting either, just a heads up.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

I'm not sure what you are referring to by "given validity"I only use "validity" in the sense it's used in (formal) logic, which is namely, "Impossibility that premises are true and a conclusion is false (where "and" is used rather as "and/or")." I suppose you're just asking "what makes me think my opinion should be what's instantiated," but the answer to that is pretty obviousit's what I feel is the right way to approach evidence (and the reasons for that include what I mentioned before, such as lying not being logically valid (per the definition I just explained) for indicating guilt of a crime). One isn't going to think that something other than what makes sense to one/what one feels is right should ideally be what's instantiated.

Re it being unconvincing to you, that's fine, but it would have a lot more weight if I thought you were some sort of ideal rational agent or important person to convince, and I think neither of those things.

Re your snarky comment, I couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks of me, so . . . just a heads up. I'd never express myself any differently than I like to just because you don't like it or interpret it however you do.

You're projecting. It's you who's being irrational expecting your personal opinion and wishful thinking to supersede judicial proceedings and a court of law. Nobody cares how you personally feel as your wishful thinking doesn't objectively make a case for a miscarriage of justice. If you don't wish to convince people with your position then just wtf are you even posting on a public message board for?
Oh I know you don't care what people think of you, your defence of child rapists on a different board highlighted that quite adequately.
However within the context of this discussion, you've brought absolutely nothing to the table. Just the same non arguments, pretzel logic and wishful thinking as the rest of their fan club.
Which is why nobody rational takes their supporters arguments remotely seriously.

---

expecting your personal opinion and wishful thinking to supersede judicial proceedings and a court of law.

---

I said nothing resembling "I expect my approach to supersede present legal conventions." Rather, I gave my opinion, and made that clear when you responded as if I might have been intending to report present legal conventions instead.

---

If you don't wish to convince people with your position then just wtf are you even posting on a public message board for?

---

I like to express my opinions. That's it.

Ha! I see you've met JrkOffEddie.

Normal Is A Myth.

Unfortunately,yes.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

---

Your passive agression isn't very interesting either, just a heads up.

---

Oh, the irony.

(I'm also curious whether you have a goal of persuading me about anything, and why you would. And if you do have that goal, how do you think you're doing so far?)

No I don't, which makes your second question moot. Again, we're simply waffling on the internet. Anything we say is irrelevant as those three child murdering scumbags are free roaming the streets. However, those of us who haven't drank the WM3 kool aid are perfectly validated in asserting their guilt due to their Alford plea cop out. Everyone wins, except their victims.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

Okay, so why should I be trying to persuade you of anything? That would be pretty one-sided.

So yet again why are you even here? You're clearly a weirdo and your passive aggressive zero substance droning is already boring me to tears. Come back when you have an actual valid point to make rather than how you'd really like things to be.

---

You're clearly a weirdo and your passive aggressive zero substance droning is already boring me to tears.

---

So it will be odd if you continue responding to me, I suppose.

What a bullheaded dick that guy was. You are correct. Anyone who asserts will bullheaded certainty their guilt or innocence has little credibility in my books.

I'm not interested in your whinging about what a dick I am, refute my argument instead of wailing irrelevantly.
I can afford to assert as they're legally guilty and none of their groupies seem to be able to specify with validity how their trial got it wrong twice, nor have they been able to credibly explain away the evidence against the three sexually perverted deviants.
So again refute my points as nobody cares about your crying about what a big meanie I am.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

It was proven. Twice. BARD, which is the only standard any reputable court of law needs to adhere to. Absolute mathematical 100% certainty isn't required by any court, that's not what BARD entails.
There was evidence, it's just that your personal standard of proof requires unequivocal physical evidence, even though physical evidence did exist against them anyway.

No it isn't. Lying is very relevant to the crime, particularly when the defendant is doing the lying on the stand, especially if the defendant is up for multiple child murder. Innocents do not lie in court. They simply stick to their story and certainly don't keep changing it multiple times as is convenient, the way Echols did. Knowing details you shouldn't know is also very very relevant.
There was no way he could have known those details and what's more he lied yet again on the stand about how he knew such details. He said he'd read the details in the paper only no newspaper released the details he knew.

No, you appear to be reporting on what you personally think should be legal requirements and that's not how it works.

No. What constitutes evidence is not subjective. There is a standard definition of what constitutes evidence and it was enough to convince two juries after the evidence was presented and after the Defence had all the time they needed to cross examine the witnesses, lay and expert and challenge the evidence to their hearts' content. They were still convicted after all of this.

My question is because you seem to feel that the present authority wrt to establishing facts at criminal trials- a criminal court of law- is somehow flawed, so my question as to what would constitute a better authority and what would specifically make it better than the current one, is valid. Your personal burden of proof requirements make me doubt if any court could function adequately though.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

Sorry I quasi double posted there kinda due to an apparent glitch in IMDB not showing my first post.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

---

I hate when people act like law enforcement singled this kid out because of his music tastes and the fact he wore black, like that's ALL they had to go on. No. People act like he was just a normal rebellious teenager that got picked on. Like he was such a good guy. Poor Damien. It drives me crazy. Look into the history of this kid and admit that even if he didn't commit the murders, he was an extremely disturbed individual throughout 1992-1993. That's all I wish people would admit.

---

Like I mentioned in the post above, I only just finished watching the first film and haven't seen or read anything else, but the way everything is presented in this film alone, it really does make Damien seem like a good guy, but just misunderstood.

I was totally convinced of his innocence until I came to the board here. He seemed intelligent and well-read and some of his comments made a lot of sense.

You may have more information, but maybe a lot of people just go by this film, which doesn't really portray him in a bad light.

---

R.I.P. Rick Ducommun and Tony Longo

---

Damien seemed like a typical goth/metal kid, a bit weird by normal standards but not even THAT strange. None of those kids looked or acted guilty at all. Throughout the entire film I was thinking that they were innocent. I was surprised that all 3 were convicted. There was so little evidence. Whatever happened to "reasonable doubt?" I had more than reasonable doubt. It's a real shame that they lost that time in prison, if in fact they were innocent of the crimes. Incidentally, none of the three looked like they had the brains to commit such a crime. Those murders looked like the work of a crafty serial killer.

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics'

I agree, I knew plenty of teenage metal heads with an interest in the occult, when I was growing up. None of them grew up to become murderers. Some of them said similarly inflammatory things like Damian did. A lot of it was just lashing out at authority, parents, problems with drugs, mental issues etc,etc. They went on with their lives, got older, and eventually blended into society.

After learning more about Echols and the case, I'm no longer completely convinced they are innocent. Echols was severely emotionally disturbed, with a history of odd behavior and making violent threats. That got left out of the documentaries. People weren't just suspicious of him because he dressed in black and read Stephen King books.

Have you read his book? If not, I highly recommend it..




"I just thought if you invited me over, you knew it was me showing up"

First off, I maintain my beliefs that these three men were 100% innocent.

In Damien's case, I think he was a troubled smart-ass, and all of his flaws came back to bite him in the ass, hard. Did he deserved all of this? Absolutely not, and I'm not implying that whatsoever.

It was unfortunate. They needed somebody to point the finger at. In comes Damien's best friend with a history of petty crimes and a troubled childhood, and a borderline mentally-retarded Jessie Miskelley.

It was all too easy for them; Damien was very dark and troubled, with anger and frustration. He wore black, listened to Metallica (the horror!) and was "kinda creepy looking".

But, instead of admitting that they screwed up (the state), of course they ruined and took 18 years away from these three boys and continued on with their merry lives, also ripping justice away from the family's and getting the real killer off the streets.

I'm sorry I couldn't be more eloquent with this. I know I'm leaving out a lot of facts. But I could truly go on for days about this case, the injustice, and the idiocy of the officials.

Yes, it's awesome that they're out; but as we all know, they had to essentially plead guilty. They'll always be haunted by the memories of their years spent in prison, and the fact that they're still considered guilty of triple homicide.

I don't believe that John Mark Byers had anything to do with the case. He was angry and of course believed what he was told about these men. These family's wanted justice and closure; that's what they believed they had.

I'm happy to see that he's changed for the better and is now a supporter. Terry Hobbs still doesn't sit right with me, especially after he blatantly denied the fact that he was ever abusive towards his family, and his entire demeanor during interrogation and so on. Why didn't he call Pam when Stevie didn't return home? So many suspicions. But who knows; this case was a mess, and was never dealt with properly. Bloody shame, those three little boys deserved justice.

Did you watch 'Loose Change' and think 9/11 was an inside job?



callahan.8k.com

wm3truth.com